It also baffles me that in the US Obama is viewed as being very leftwing. I guess he is relative to the current crop of republicans, but I see him as fairly right wing in many ways.

By today's standards, Richard Nixon would be seen by the Regan Republicans as hopelessly left wing. But the Nixon was of the Goldwater school.

It's worth remembering how the country has changed since then. Economically, Nixon was right wing then, but the same policies would be left wing now. He was as far to the right as he could be at the time.

Of course, on gender, racial or LGBT issues he was on the right then and would be off the chart to the right now. The open blatant racism/sexism of the time wouldn't wash today even among the parts of the Republican party that still play to it. The country has moved a long way there.

Of course, on gender, racial or LGBT issues he was on the right then and would be off the chart to the right now. The open blatant racism/sexism of the time wouldn't wash today even among the parts of the Republican party that still play to it. The country has moved a long way there.

I don't know. We just had a Congressman (or was it a Senator?) express openly that women can't be made pregnant against their will. Rape victims are still put on figurative public trial and many spectators tend to assume that "she started it". We made steps forward in some areas, but we've clearly backslid in others. And several states have effectively nullified Roe Vs. Wade within their borders.

Of course, on gender, racial or LGBT issues he was on the right then and would be off the chart to the right now. The open blatant racism/sexism of the time wouldn't wash today even among the parts of the Republican party that still play to it. The country has moved a long way there.

I don't know. We just had a Congressman (or was it a Senator?) express openly that women can't be made pregnant against their will. Rape victims are still put on figurative public trial and many spectators tend to assume that "she started it". We made steps forward in some areas, but we've clearly backslid in others. And several states have effectively nullified Roe Vs. Wade within their borders.

Compared to then?

Roe vs Wade was during Nixon's term. Abortion was actually illegal during most of his tenure.
Despite the ongoing problems with treatment of rape victims, things really have gotten a lot better.

We've definitely backslid, but it's been 2 steps up and 1 step back

Not at all claiming things are perfect. In some ways the racism and sexism have just gone underground.

Nixon laid the ground work for opening up China, he ended the Vietnam war, enforced desegregation of Southern schools, and started the EPA.

Maybe you're just not up on it, but he extended the war in Vietnam by interfering in the peace talks betweeen north and south Vietnam, promising that if he gets elected he'd give Ho Chi Minh a better deal. How many thousands of US servicemen died between 1968, when LBJ wanted out and 1973 when we finally left?

Nixon laid the ground work for opening up China, he ended the Vietnam war, enforced desegregation of Southern schools, and started the EPA.

Maybe you're just not up on it, but he extended the war in Vietnam by interfering in the peace talks betweeen north and south Vietnam, promising that if he gets elected he'd give Ho Chi Minh a better deal. How many thousands of US servicemen died between 1968, when LBJ wanted out and 1973 when we finally left?

Look I'm not a fan. I think he's a creep and I don't doubt he was indirectly responsible for the maiming and murder of thousands of US and Vietnam men and thousands more Vietnam civilians. It's tragic but it's only now that the US are sending aid to deal with the millions of unexploded bombs and the environmental damaged caused by tons of chemical weapons like agent orange. I don't like Nixon but the fact is he didn't start the war but he is the one that ultimately ended it. Kennedy (who I liked) and LBJ (who I didn't) both had the chance to end the war but didn't.

I don't know. We just had a Congressman (or was it a Senator?) express openly that women can't be made pregnant against their will.

Rep. Todd Akin is currently running for the Senate. So both, if he wins.

The thing is...he's hardly alone in this sentiment. It's a weird fundie urban myth about the rape babies self aborting. You'd be surprised how many people believe that. There was a woman interviewed at the RNC by the Daily show that basically agreed.

I don't know. We just had a Congressman (or was it a Senator?) express openly that women can't be made pregnant against their will.

Rep. Todd Akin is currently running for the Senate. So both, if he wins.

The thing is...he's hardly alone in this sentiment. It's a weird fundie urban myth about the rape babies self aborting. You'd be surprised how many people believe that. There was a woman interviewed at the RNC by the Daily show that basically agreed.

*shakes head*

Its pretty common. X must be true because my beliefs don't make sense if it isn't.

I don't know. We just had a Congressman (or was it a Senator?) express openly that women can't be made pregnant against their will.

Rep. Todd Akin is currently running for the Senate. So both, if he wins.

The thing is...he's hardly alone in this sentiment. It's a weird fundie urban myth about the rape babies self aborting. You'd be surprised how many people believe that. There was a woman interviewed at the RNC by the Daily show that basically agreed.

*shakes head*

It's particularly scary because of what happens when you invert the logic (Contrapositive, I think?).

You can't get pregnant when you are raped implies that if you did get pregnant you weren't really raped.

It's not just a bit of self-pleasing logic to let them not have to worry about not letting raped women have abortions, it becomes a defense for rapists and another accusation against women who've been raped.

Roe vs Wade was during Nixon's term. Abortion was actually illegal during most of his tenure.
Despite the ongoing problems with treatment of rape victims, things really have gotten a lot better.

Let me bring you up to speed on a critical matter here. Legal abortion doesn't help you one bit if you don't have access to it. Right now in about 20 states there are laws that are either on the books or under consideration to put in requirements for abortion physicians that will make it impossible for them to practice. Several states are already down to ONE single clinic serving the entire state. We are looking at large swathes of the country where it will simply not be possible to obtain a legal abortion due to the inability for clinicians to practice legally.

Roe vs Wade was during Nixon's term. Abortion was actually illegal during most of his tenure.
Despite the ongoing problems with treatment of rape victims, things really have gotten a lot better.

Let me bring you up to speed on a critical matter here. Legal abortion doesn't help you one bit if you don't have access to it. Right now in about 20 states there are laws that are either on the books or under consideration to put in requirements for abortion physicians that will make it impossible for them to practice. Several states are already down to ONE single clinic serving the entire state. We are looking at large swathes of the country where it will simply not be possible to obtain a legal abortion due to the inability for clinicians to practice legally.

I'm well aware of that. I know and am disgusted by the way abortion rights have been trampled on in practice, while remaining technically legal.

Are you suggesting that it was better before Roe v Wade? Because that's all I was saying.

It's not just a bit of self-pleasing logic to let them not have to worry about not letting raped women have abortions, it becomes a defense for rapists and another accusation against women who've been raped.

Wow. Hadn't thought of that before.

Would that actually work or would the logic only hold until it was no longer useful and get discarded before this part?

Nixon laid the ground work for opening up China, he ended the Vietnam war, enforced desegregation of Southern schools, and started the EPA.

Maybe you're just not up on it, but he extended the war in Vietnam by interfering in the peace talks betweeen north and south Vietnam, promising that if he gets elected he'd give Ho Chi Minh a better deal. How many thousands of US servicemen died between 1968, when LBJ wanted out and 1973 when we finally left?

Look I'm not a fan. I think he's a creep and I don't doubt he was indirectly responsible for the maiming and murder of thousands of US and Vietnam men and thousands more Vietnam civilians. It's tragic but it's only now that the US are sending aid to deal with the millions of unexploded bombs and the environmental damaged caused by tons of chemical weapons like agent orange. I don't like Nixon but the fact is he didn't start the war but he is the one that ultimately ended it. Kennedy (who I liked) and LBJ (who I didn't) both had the chance to end the war but didn't.

Kennedy didn't end it because it hadn't (really) started. He was also about to begin pulling troops out before he was assassinated.

LBJ was lid to by JFK's NSC about Kennedy's intentions and by McNamamara and the NSA regarding the second Tonkin incident. He was certainly a belligerence and like almost every one else looking for an excuse, but he's not the only one responsible.

Nixon gets no credit it for ending it because he committed treason by negotiating with an enemy power for his own gain, scuttling the Paris talks.

It's not just a bit of self-pleasing logic to let them not have to worry about not letting raped women have abortions, it becomes a defense for rapists and another accusation against women who've been raped.

Wow. Hadn't thought of that before.

Would that actually work or would the logic only hold until it was no longer useful and get discarded before this part?

For the people buying into this crap: That's useful too. Rape isn't "legitimate" unless the victim is an untouched virgin saving herself for marriage and the attacker is as brutal as you can imagine beating her near to death. That's a paraphrase of some winger describing when abortion might be acceptable.

It's the same old she was asking for it/she really enjoyed it defense against rape charges.

Of course, it would be different when it was personal. It always is. Talk to people who've worked at an abortion clinic. They see people come in for abortion, who are back on the protests lines right after. Their case was special. Exceptional circumstances. The others just don't want to take responsibility.

Roe vs Wade was during Nixon's term. Abortion was actually illegal during most of his tenure.
Despite the ongoing problems with treatment of rape victims, things really have gotten a lot better.

Let me bring you up to speed on a critical matter here. Legal abortion doesn't help you one bit if you don't have access to it. Right now in about 20 states there are laws that are either on the books or under consideration to put in requirements for abortion physicians that will make it impossible for them to practice. Several states are already down to ONE single clinic serving the entire state. We are looking at large swathes of the country where it will simply not be possible to obtain a legal abortion due to the inability for clinicians to practice legally.

I'm well aware of that. I know and am disgusted by the way abortion rights have been trampled on in practice, while remaining technically legal.

Are you suggesting that it was better before Roe v Wade? Because that's all I was saying.

Roe v. Wade was a major defeat for the Pro-Life movement. But now they've rallied and have gotten smart. They've multi-pronged their assault into from just trying to overturn it. They've gone after availability. And they're doing very well at it.

Nixon laid the ground work for opening up China, he ended the Vietnam war, enforced desegregation of Southern schools, and started the EPA.

Maybe you're just not up on it, but he extended the war in Vietnam by interfering in the peace talks betweeen north and south Vietnam, promising that if he gets elected he'd give Ho Chi Minh a better deal. How many thousands of US servicemen died between 1968, when LBJ wanted out and 1973 when we finally left?

Look I'm not a fan. I think he's a creep and I don't doubt he was indirectly responsible for the maiming and murder of thousands of US and Vietnam men and thousands more Vietnam civilians. It's tragic but it's only now that the US are sending aid to deal with the millions of unexploded bombs and the environmental damaged caused by tons of chemical weapons like agent orange. I don't like Nixon but the fact is he didn't start the war but he is the one that ultimately ended it. Kennedy (who I liked) and LBJ (who I didn't) both had the chance to end the war but didn't.

Kennedy didn't end it because it hadn't (really) started. He was also about to begin pulling troops out before he was assassinated.

LBJ was lid to by JFK's NSC about Kennedy's intentions and by McNamamara and the NSA regarding the second Tonkin incident. He was certainly a belligerence and like almost every one else looking for an excuse, but he's not the only one responsible.

Nixon gets no credit it for ending it because he committed treason by negotiating with an enemy power for his own gain, scuttling the Paris talks.

You have to remember what was at stake. Peace in Vietnam by itself was not a desirable goal if it left China with a major hook into Vietnam's natural resources. (In addition to tungsten, Vietnam is believed to have the world's largest reserves of bauxite, which is where you get aluminum from.) As a staunch anti-Communist, Nixon was looking to get a stronger American handle on the unified state that Vietnam was going to become.

Just because you disagree with his strategy, is hardly a good reason to apply the "treason" label. That's something to be spared for someone who is actively and deliberately looking to betray his own country. For all his faults, and he had some major ones, that's not a charge you can make stick against him.

So are theft, embezzlement, tax evasion and bribery.. Oddly enough the trick isn't to get caught: that's for amateurs. Real pro's simply make what they're doing legal by bribing.. oh sorry, lobbying the government.

There is an interview where George Plunkitt from the Tammany hall era spoke about honest graft and dishonest graft. Plunkitt complains that people accused him of stealing money from the treasury which he would never do because there was so much honest graft money lying about for him to take.

Plunkitt gets dinged for being corrupt but at least he was open and honest about how he made his fortune.

Just because you disagree with his strategy, is hardly a good reason to apply the "treason" label. That's something to be spared for someone who is actively and deliberately looking to betray his own country. For all his faults, and he had some major ones, that's not a charge you can make stick against him.

We're not talking about his actions as president, we're talking about in 1968 while running for president he interfered in the Paris peace talks to prolong an unpopular war and get elected. You can read all about it here.Or just google "Nixon treason" and you'll see dozens of articles about it. The tapes were just released not long ago, which is why it's still sorta news.

We're not calling it treason because we dislike Nixon, we're echoing the sentiment of LBJ that he expressed speaking to Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, as recorded on White House tapes. LBJ killed the story about Nixon's treason in the NYT because he thought that if the American people found out what he was doing they'd lose all faith in democracy.

So, if Nixon, then with no administrative or military authority, hadn't interfered in the Paris peace talks between North and South Vietnam, the war mightn't have been going for Nixon to end. Heck the peace talks may have been successful and Nixon may have lost to Humphrey. And it most certainly was treasonous, which I agree isn't a label you should throw around lightly. Nixon was a terrible person who committed treason to get elected president.

Just because you disagree with his strategy, is hardly a good reason to apply the "treason" label. That's something to be spared for someone who is actively and deliberately looking to betray his own country. For all his faults, and he had some major ones, that's not a charge you can make stick against him.

We're not talking about his actions as president, we're talking about in 1968 while running for president he interfered in the Paris peace talks to prolong an unpopular war and get elected. You can read all about it here.Or just google "Nixon treason" and you'll see dozens of articles about it. The tapes were just released not long ago, which is why it's still sorta news.

We're not calling it treason because we dislike Nixon, we're echoing the sentiment of LBJ that he expressed speaking to Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, as recorded on White House tapes. LBJ killed the story about Nixon's treason in the NYT because he thought that if the American people found out what he was doing they'd lose all faith in democracy.

So, if Nixon, then with no administrative or military authority, hadn't interfered in the Paris peace talks between North and South Vietnam, the war mightn't have been going for Nixon to end. Heck the peace talks may have been successful and Nixon may have lost to Humphrey. And it most certainly was treasonous, which I agree isn't a label you should throw around lightly. Nixon was a terrible person who committed treason to get elected president.

What Nixon did was by some aspects morally reprehensible, but it wasn't treason, it was political hardball. The fact that such hardball cost lives is collateral damage. And that's always been the main difference between the Republicans and the Democrats... in comparison, the Democrats since Roosevelt and Kennedy, sucked at politics and continue to suck at playing the hardball game. If Nixon committed treason, Johnson was complicit in letting it slide.

The tactics that Reagan's people played on Carter had a lot less significance, in that the only material effect was to prolong the imprisonment of the American hostages. But the strategy paid off big for the Republicans as Reagan, not Carter was the one to get the credit for threatening the "big stick" to get the hostages freed and securing Iran as leverage against Iraq.

What Nixon did was by some aspects morally reprehensible, but it wasn't treason, it was political hardball. The fact that such hardball cost lives is collateral damage. And that's always been the main difference between the Republicans and the Democrats... in comparison, the Democrats since Roosevelt and Kennedy, sucked at politics and continue to suck at playing the hardball game. If Nixon committed treason, Johnson was complicit in letting it slide.

The tactics that Reagan's people played on Carter had a lot less significance, in that the only material effect was to prolong the imprisonment of the American hostages. But the strategy paid off big for the Republicans as Reagan, not Carter was the one to get the credit for threatening the "big stick" to get the hostages freed and securing Iran as leverage against Iraq.

US Code 18 USC § 2381 - Treason wrote:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United State.

What Nixon did was by some aspects morally reprehensible, but it wasn't treason, it was political hardball. The fact that such hardball cost lives is collateral damage. And that's always been the main difference between the Republicans and the Democrats... in comparison, the Democrats since Roosevelt and Kennedy, sucked at politics and continue to suck at playing the hardball game. If Nixon committed treason, Johnson was complicit in letting it slide.

The tactics that Reagan's people played on Carter had a lot less significance, in that the only material effect was to prolong the imprisonment of the American hostages. But the strategy paid off big for the Republicans as Reagan, not Carter was the one to get the credit for threatening the "big stick" to get the hostages freed and securing Iran as leverage against Iraq.

US Code 18 USC § 2381 - Treason wrote:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United State.

Also, Iran wasn't leverage against Iraq. Iran was a Soviet client at the time. Iraq and Saddam Hussein were ours.

Yeah kinda sorta, but Hussein was getting ideas that he was actually running his country, and the Iranians were getting a bit cheesed at the atheism of the Soviets. The geopolitical chessboard of the Middle East is a lot more complicated than who's carrying the flag for who at any given time.

And you can quote the treason laws all you like. But the fact of the matter is... Treason is defined by who's on top of the political hill, just as what qualifies as Impeachment is up to Congressional whim.

I'd really like to know where you're getting that 40 percent figure from. Aside from it being a popular Internet meme that's part of the right wing FUD. If you're not on welfare or retired you're paying federal taxes on the income you make. And there's no way that 40 percent of the population is on the dole. The working poor also tend to pay sales tax that the affluent tend to avoid because the things we buy like cars and homes are filtered through corporate funds as perks. I'm making about 34k gross. I don't have Cayman island shelters to hide my income, because the bulk of my income has to be spent on things like rent, utilities, health care, and fool necessities. So unlike Romney who shelteres the millions he doesn't have to spend on necessities, I actually am amswerable to all of my income outside the standard deduction.

I'd really like to know where you're getting that 40 percent figure from. Aside from it being a popular Internet meme that's part of the right wing FUD. If you're not on welfare or retired you're paying federal taxes on the income you make.

Also, Iran wasn't leverage against Iraq. Iran was a Soviet client at the time. Iraq and Saddam Hussein were ours.

Iran was never a Soviet client state.

Under the Shah, Iran was another Turkey, i.e., an American client state in the Middle East. Under Khomeini, the Islamists were anti-American and anti-communist.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq, on the other hand, was the biggest recipient of Soviet military aid from 1980 to 1988. It wasn't until the Islamic "Revolution" and the Soviet intervention into Afghanistan that Iraq started receiving American military aid and you get all of those cool pictures of Hussein hanging out with Donald Rumsfeld.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Or: You cannot cross the same river twice.

There is no 'the same thing' with human beings and uncontrollable (often invisible) factors involved. This isn't a science lab. Even looking at the known factors, this election isn't the same as the last:

1. Obama probably isn't the same man he was back then. If four years in the belly of the beast don't change you for the better or worse, what does?

2. The world hasn't stopped, there were some pretty profound changes in global economy, foreign relations and foreign politics that do realte to the U.S.

He made sure that none of them will ever face prosecution for fraud and then hired Timothy Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury so that no hedge fund billionaire or financial speculator will ever have to worry again.

He made sure that none of them will ever face prosecution for fraud and then hired Timothy Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury so that no hedge fund billionaire or financial speculator will ever have to worry again.

Yet none of these threads really talk that much about congress which is important for legislation.

I doubt many of us are in the position to vote for the same congressional representative, so unless someone running puts their foot in their mouth as bad as Atkin, most of us wont even hear about the other guys running.

Yet none of these threads really talk that much about congress which is important for legislation.

Yeah, a lot of the issue there is that most of us can't do much about it. It's not "our" congressman that's the problem, its every other districts. I live in Minnesota, but I don't live in Michelle Bachmann's district. And the problem is that her district is fairly strongly republican, so unless she's seriously challenged in the primary, she's almost guaranteed to be re-elected.

The problem there is now non-competitive a lot of districts are. The real race becomes the primary, which seems to produce more extreme candidates over time.

This is also having the effect of making the parties more extreme over time as well, which is filtering into the senate a little more slowly. Two of the most moderate senators are retiring this year, making the gap between the parties further apart.

Yet none of these threads really talk that much about congress which is important for legislation.

Yeah, a lot of the issue there is that most of us can't do much about it. It's not "our" congressman that's the problem, its every other districts. I live in Minnesota, but I don't live in Michelle Bachmann's district. And the problem is that her district is fairly strongly republican, so unless she's seriously challenged in the primary, she's almost guaranteed to be re-elected.

The problem there is now non-competitive a lot of districts are. The real race becomes the primary, which seems to produce more extreme candidates over time.

This is also having the effect of making the parties more extreme over time as well, which is filtering into the senate a little more slowly. Two of the most moderate senators are retiring this year, making the gap between the parties further apart.

Is that really true though? Or is that Republicans are becoming more extreme? I may be biased, but I don't really see any evidence that Democratic primaries have been moving the party to the left. The Tea Party revolt was quite obvious these last 2 cycles, but even in 2006 & 2008 which were strong Democratic years, I don't recall a lot of moderate Dems losing primaries. Moderate Dems who won conservative districts in those years often lost in 2010, but that's a different trend.